Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02490-PAB-KMT
11-14-2011
JOSEPH LOUIS DURAN, Plaintiff, v. DENEEN CRANDELL, Psy. D., and SGT. LEE MARTINEZ, Retired, Defendants.
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a filing by plaintiff entitled "Motion to Incorporate New Prisoner Complaint with Current Prisoner Complaint" [Docket No. 83], which the Court construes as a motion to consolidate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1.
In light of plaintiff's pro se status, the Court has construed his filing liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff requests that the Court consolidate the present action with a subsequent lawsuit he initiated, Civil Action No. 11-cv-02213-BNB. Pursuant to Rule 42(a)(2), the Court is permitted to consolidate actions if they "involve a common question of law or fact." The Court has "broad discretion to decide how cases on its docket are to be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched with expedition and economy while providing justice to the parties." 9A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure -Civil, § 2381 (3d ed. 2011). In the exercise of that discretion, the Court will deny the request to consolidate. There are no common defendants in the two actions and, although there is some factual overlap between the two actions, it is not of a sort that renders consolidation a more expeditious approach to resolving the cases. Therefore, it is
Plaintiff has attached a copy of the complaint from Civil Action No. 11-cv-02213-BNB to his motion. See Docket No. 83-1.
--------
ORDERED that plaintiff's "Motion to Incorporate New Prisoner Complaint with Current Prisoner Complaint" [Docket No. 83] is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge